Robert L. Ele v. Utah Board of Pardons : Unknown
1992
- 17Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage17
- Downloads14
- Abstract Views3
Artifact Description
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OP UTAH oooOooo Robert L. Ele * MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION Plaint iff/Respondent: ,. TQ W R I T Q p C E R T I Q R A RI VS * State of Utah, Utah Board of * Case No. 9932 Pardons, et al * Defendants/Petitioners: * Judge —oooOooo qaosc^ The posibiiities for abuse inherant in a Statute of Limitations placed on a system where the object or subject of a Writ is your captor and thus responsible for your access to pencils, paper, legal materials, the U.S. Mail and every other aspect of ones existance has been recognized by this Court. Utah Code 77-27-5(3) Barred any Judicial Review from Parole decisions by the Utah Board of Pardons. Prior to the Poote decision in this Court (No. 900132) All actions against the Board of Pardons were summarily dismissed under this Code. Trying to apply a Stutute of Limitations to something that did not exist— Prior to Poote— is a total absurdity, Plaintiff's Writ was filed in District Court in a timely manner following the Poote decision which makes the State's Contention a Moot Point. As per Utah Senate and House minuets of debate on Bill No. 245 submitted by State, it is quite obvious that the Legislation was directed at Capital Cases. Unfortunatly, a scatter-gun approach was used that encompassed an entire group— 99% of which are not among the target population. Senate Bill 245 should be declared unconstitutional and voided. Based on the foregoing the State's Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be denied. /A Dated and Signed this / pay of yZZd,/ ,199 £L . 5-1
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know